add github actions test workflow

[dhimmel]

Haven't test this yet... will update with whether it works.

I find GitHub actions is a bit slicker than Travis and is nicely integrated with GitHub. If we merge this, could then remove Travis.

[dhimmel]

looks to be working https://github.com/dhimmel/csl-schema/runs/697715882

will remove Travis since not much point in having both services active

[dhimmel]

@bdarcus care to review?

[bdarcus]

I don't really know anything about this, but I merged, figuring if there's some minor problem, we can fix it :-)

[bdarcus]

And of course, as soon as I say that, I get this:

https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/actions/runs/111868243

[dhimmel]

And of course, as soon as I say that, I get this:

haha. it's trying to resolve some non-existent URL (log):

url = 'https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/date-variable'

I'll look into it

[dhimmel]

I think the problem has to do with how we define date-variable:

schema/csl-data.json

Line 195 in 991d8f6

"id": "date-variable",

schema/csl-data.json

Line 240 in 991d8f6

"$ref": "date-variable"

In draft-07, it seems like this might need to be placed in a definition and referenced like { "$ref": "#/definitions/date-variable" }. I think @dsifford dealt with this in #161. What we want is the most minimal change to get our definitions working.

[bdarcus]

Oh, so the GitHub action did work correctly? If yes, do you think you could submit another PR to fix the bug it uncovered?

[dhimmel]

Oh, so the GitHub action did work correctly?

I think so, the error message is not super clear, but I think the issue is that the upgrade to draft-07 (and draft-06) in 7179185 has some problems. These problems did not surface until we added the test in this pull request, since previously no tests were checking for whether definitions worked.

do you think you could submit another PR to fix the bug it uncovered?

probably not soon. I don't have much experience with JSON schemas. @dsifford might be able to take part of #161 to fix it without too much hassle.

[bdarcus]

That validators aren't very helpful.

@dsifford might be able to take part of #161 to fix it without too much hassle.

That'd be awesome if he could; I'm struggling with this.

[bdarcus]

So the problem may be simply that the pattern that's referenced is in the wrong place.

[dsifford]

Let me know if you aren't able to get it sorted @bdarcus and I'll have a look later this afternoon.

[dhimmel]

Okay, I opened a dedicated issue for this at #188